6 ms·

> and never coughs up answers. I have fought this my whole life, and only in my adulthood, and self guided learning, have I found the freedom to accept it: I l

> and never coughs up answers. I have fought this my whole life, and only in my adulthood, and self guided learning, have I found the freedom to accept it: I learn better from being given the answer and working backwards. (Even literally reading textbooks “backwards”) I hope there’s more nuance to this than this quote suggests, because I shudder to imagine a student experiencing what I did but now with a tireless unempathetic agent refusing to just tell a struggling student the answer and instead continually looping on suggestions to “look at it from another angle” in every way but the one “angle” I’m explicitly asking for. Aligning digital teachers with our broken education system that thinks “answers” are the important part of education is a terrible terrible idea. That quote should have read ~“the agent has been designed to work tirelessly to do anything to ensure the student understands the material well enough to wield it”

patcon 3y ago
I feel for you, but I would humbly suggest trying to get to the root of this. In all sincerity, therapy is good for this sort of thing. I have similar desires, but I have come to understand them as quite dysfunctional, and not something that should be catered to by the system around me. Because the real/natural world doesn't work that way. it's very ill-adapted to real life learning. Only in a constructed and false environment can anyone give us the answer to help us learn. The point of learning is not just the acquisition of information, but also to learn how to acquire future information. Leaning into your current tactics (and advocating ppl be supported to learn this way) will leave the learner very ill-equipped to learn in the real world and real jobs, where no one has the answer to give. Learning to thrive (or at least cope) in that situation, that's important
- westhanover 3y ago
  This is a nonsensical statement produced by a chat bot. There are no invalid ways of learning.
  - patcon 3y ago
    There are 100% at least some ways of learning that ill prepare us for the world we're eventually going to be thrown into I mean, we're talking "learning". Even negative reinforcement and beatings are a way that was a "learning style" at one point, that ppl defended as "worked for me". "Every way of learning is fine" is not a sensible way to enter the conversation about education
    - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
      umm, "Even negative reinforcement and beatings are a way that was a "learning style" at one point" is a teaching style, not a learning style.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  > but I understand them as quite dysfunctional, and not something that should be catered to I'd be happier to accept this if you'd explain why it's dysfunctional.
  - patcon 3y ago
    Maybe my rationale was just unconvincing to you (and I respect that), but I said it in the next paragraph. If you felt inclined to offer what's unconvincing about that, I'm open-minded about changing my perspective, or maybe I can better articulate beyond those words EDIT: I realize maybe I prematurely submitted and it was just the first paragraph for a minute. It was all one thought, so apologies if that's what happened
    - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
      Thank you, but I did see the whole answer (the second paragraph) when I responded. I sort of know what you're saying about not spoon feeding people, but learning happens best for a person according to that person, and working backwards from an answer can be as illuminating for me as it was for the other guy (and it can be illuminating for the wrong reason – revealing that it was a poor question in the first place). I don't think you can be prescriptive about how people should learn. In the end we'll have to be able to operate without someone giving us the answers, but in the beginning however we get the learning process we need, that's all that counts.
- juniperror 3y ago
  > I would try to get to the root of this. I guess you could amend the old adage to “on the internet everyone thinks you’re a dog”. I am decades removed from advanced university degrees. I am saying how I, as in me, learn best, and acknowledging that it’s different. My point was why restrict a “generalist engine” to only teach one specific way. All the old restrictions that pander to: this is how the text book is written, there is only one teacher and 30 students; are baggage and should be discarded in their absence. I made my educational intentions clear: > That quote should have read ~“the agent has been designed to work tirelessly to do anything to ensure the student understands the material well enough to wield it” But I do like and agree with one point you made: > but also to learn how to acquire future information. What’s the student learning in regard to acquire future information? To hope some megacorp will steal all of humanity’s creative output to build an llm to teach it to them?
  - patcon 3y ago
    Hm. Y'know what... I regret my comment. It felt ungenerous and obnoxious to write, and I tried to change the tone in edits, but it still feels gross. Maybe just consider my comment self-talk. I guess your comment hit a nerve with familiarity, and I ended up talking to myself more than speaking to you. I apologize for that. And thanks for the original sincere comment. I'm sure others have seen it and at least some of them felt a little less alone in the weird world of our own brains <3
- itronitron 3y ago
  >> Because the real/natural world doesn't work that way. it's very ill-adapted to real life learning. Actually, the real/natural world is perfectly adapted to real life learning.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    Which is why science was formed shortly after people become intelligent...
adastra22 3y ago
Getting the answer and working backwards teaches you to use what others have created within very narrow guide rails. Figuring out the answer for yourself (with some minimal guidance) teaches you to create new things. We should strive for the latter.
- juniperror 3y ago
  Getting the answer and working backwards teaches you to use what others have created in novel ways to find new solutions to old problems. Figuring out the answer for yourself (with some minimal guidance) teaches you toy problems with answers have answers. We should strive for the former.
  - adastra22 3y ago
    Cute, but wrong.
latency-guy2 3y ago
> Aligning digital teachers with our broken education system that thinks “answers” are the important part of education is a terrible terrible idea. Your position is inherently incorrect and a conflation of what you think is being done. Being provided the answer might be a decent method to learning X concept. But the answer is ALWAYS downwind of the techniques, which you are actually being taught every step of the way, in every single teaching system. If you learned+mastered the technique or concept, getting to the answer is just proving it with those things, and mostly mechanical while you write down the steps. How would you solve a problem that no one has ever touched before, and that no one knows the answer to? Where are you going to be provided the answer?
- itronitron 3y ago
  But if you are provided the answer, you can work backwards to figure out the technique. There is a large contingent here on HN that learned electronics by taking things apart, not by reading linearly through textbooks.
  - raccoonDivider 3y ago
    Reverse-engineering the technique from the answer is a different skill from creating the answer though. The latter requires more creativity, the former is deduction.
  - latency-guy2 3y ago
    I'd say test your theory, breaking electronics apart need only be a test to reverse the order in which you took them apart. That is only about as good as a memory test. Test your theory on something that requires quite a few years of intuition building and understanding. From my days as an MLE: Why does stochastic gradient descent, work? From that question, you know the answer - it works! Great, now why should I believe you? I.e, prove it. The knowledge to answer that question only really requires some understanding of stochastic processes, randomness, and vector calculus. But you would be pressed to get an answer like I did out of numerous people who did ML research and put things into all the types of conferences, and these people were not dumb at all, yet all of them used SGD in some form without really getting into why it works, effectively they do not get the tools they're using.
sp332 3y ago
I think some textbooks are really just written that badly.

patcon 3y ago

I feel for you, but I would humbly suggest trying to get to the root of this. In all sincerity, therapy is good for this sort of thing. I have similar desires, but I have come to understand them as quite dysfunctional, and not something that should be catered to by the system around me. Because the real/natural world doesn't work that way. it's very ill-adapted to real life learning. Only in a constructed and false environment can anyone give us the answer to help us learn. The point of learning is not just the acquisition of information, but also to learn how to acquire future information. Leaning into your current tactics (and advocating ppl be supported to learn this way) will leave the learner very ill-equipped to learn in the real world and real jobs, where no one has the answer to give. Learning to thrive (or at least cope) in that situation, that's important

westhanover 3y ago
This is a nonsensical statement produced by a chat bot. There are no invalid ways of learning.
- patcon 3y ago
  There are 100% at least some ways of learning that ill prepare us for the world we're eventually going to be thrown into I mean, we're talking "learning". Even negative reinforcement and beatings are a way that was a "learning style" at one point, that ppl defended as "worked for me". "Every way of learning is fine" is not a sensible way to enter the conversation about education
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    umm, "Even negative reinforcement and beatings are a way that was a "learning style" at one point" is a teaching style, not a learning style.
_a_a_a_ 3y ago
> but I understand them as quite dysfunctional, and not something that should be catered to I'd be happier to accept this if you'd explain why it's dysfunctional.
- patcon 3y ago
  Maybe my rationale was just unconvincing to you (and I respect that), but I said it in the next paragraph. If you felt inclined to offer what's unconvincing about that, I'm open-minded about changing my perspective, or maybe I can better articulate beyond those words EDIT: I realize maybe I prematurely submitted and it was just the first paragraph for a minute. It was all one thought, so apologies if that's what happened
  - _a_a_a_ 3y ago
    Thank you, but I did see the whole answer (the second paragraph) when I responded. I sort of know what you're saying about not spoon feeding people, but learning happens best for a person according to that person, and working backwards from an answer can be as illuminating for me as it was for the other guy (and it can be illuminating for the wrong reason – revealing that it was a poor question in the first place). I don't think you can be prescriptive about how people should learn. In the end we'll have to be able to operate without someone giving us the answers, but in the beginning however we get the learning process we need, that's all that counts.
juniperror 3y ago
> I would try to get to the root of this. I guess you could amend the old adage to “on the internet everyone thinks you’re a dog”. I am decades removed from advanced university degrees. I am saying how I, as in me, learn best, and acknowledging that it’s different. My point was why restrict a “generalist engine” to only teach one specific way. All the old restrictions that pander to: this is how the text book is written, there is only one teacher and 30 students; are baggage and should be discarded in their absence. I made my educational intentions clear: > That quote should have read ~“the agent has been designed to work tirelessly to do anything to ensure the student understands the material well enough to wield it” But I do like and agree with one point you made: > but also to learn how to acquire future information. What’s the student learning in regard to acquire future information? To hope some megacorp will steal all of humanity’s creative output to build an llm to teach it to them?
- patcon 3y ago
  Hm. Y'know what... I regret my comment. It felt ungenerous and obnoxious to write, and I tried to change the tone in edits, but it still feels gross. Maybe just consider my comment self-talk. I guess your comment hit a nerve with familiarity, and I ended up talking to myself more than speaking to you. I apologize for that. And thanks for the original sincere comment. I'm sure others have seen it and at least some of them felt a little less alone in the weird world of our own brains <3
itronitron 3y ago
>> Because the real/natural world doesn't work that way. it's very ill-adapted to real life learning. Actually, the real/natural world is perfectly adapted to real life learning.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Which is why science was formed shortly after people become intelligent...

adastra22 3y ago

Getting the answer and working backwards teaches you to use what others have created within very narrow guide rails. Figuring out the answer for yourself (with some minimal guidance) teaches you to create new things. We should strive for the latter.

juniperror 3y ago
Getting the answer and working backwards teaches you to use what others have created in novel ways to find new solutions to old problems. Figuring out the answer for yourself (with some minimal guidance) teaches you toy problems with answers have answers. We should strive for the former.
- adastra22 3y ago
  Cute, but wrong.

latency-guy2 3y ago

> Aligning digital teachers with our broken education system that thinks “answers” are the important part of education is a terrible terrible idea. Your position is inherently incorrect and a conflation of what you think is being done. Being provided the answer might be a decent method to learning X concept. But the answer is ALWAYS downwind of the techniques, which you are actually being taught every step of the way, in every single teaching system. If you learned+mastered the technique or concept, getting to the answer is just proving it with those things, and mostly mechanical while you write down the steps. How would you solve a problem that no one has ever touched before, and that no one knows the answer to? Where are you going to be provided the answer?

itronitron 3y ago
But if you are provided the answer, you can work backwards to figure out the technique. There is a large contingent here on HN that learned electronics by taking things apart, not by reading linearly through textbooks.
- raccoonDivider 3y ago
  Reverse-engineering the technique from the answer is a different skill from creating the answer though. The latter requires more creativity, the former is deduction.
- latency-guy2 3y ago
  I'd say test your theory, breaking electronics apart need only be a test to reverse the order in which you took them apart. That is only about as good as a memory test. Test your theory on something that requires quite a few years of intuition building and understanding. From my days as an MLE: Why does stochastic gradient descent, work? From that question, you know the answer - it works! Great, now why should I believe you? I.e, prove it. The knowledge to answer that question only really requires some understanding of stochastic processes, randomness, and vector calculus. But you would be pressed to get an answer like I did out of numerous people who did ML research and put things into all the types of conferences, and these people were not dumb at all, yet all of them used SGD in some form without really getting into why it works, effectively they do not get the tools they're using.

sp332 3y ago

I think some textbooks are really just written that badly.